Residents could lose rights about fracking under their homes

Daily Echo: Residents to lose rights about fracking under their homes Residents to lose rights about fracking under their homes

RESIDENTS will lose the chance to block ‘fracking’ under their homes, under new laws, a Southampton MP has warned.

The Queen’s Speech contained a ‘Freedom to Frack’ Bill - changing trespass laws to allow companies to unlock shale gas reserves under privately owned land, even if the owners object.

Energy companies are demanding the switch before they invest hundreds of millions of pounds in assessing whether large-scale exploitation is economically feasible.

As previously reported, Hampshire is a shale gas hot spot, with eight drilling licences for possible fracking already issued to gas companies at sites across South Hampshire.

And David Cameron is impatient for progress - confident that opposition to fracking will fall away when the first wells are up and running, hopefully within a year.

But Alan Whitehead, the Southampton Test MP, said the new law would “very substantially erode” someone’s ability to object to a fracking proposal under their home.

And he ridiculed the comparison with utility companies which, ministers have argued, already enjoy similar powers of access.

Dr Whitehead, a strong opponent of fracking, said: “Utility companies don’t blow rocks up and jet water underground. They do something sensible - giving power and water to homes.

“What’s being proposed is trying to create the conditions for the same sort of development that has led to scarred landscapes in parts of North America.

“And the public’s ability to do anything to stop this happening will be very substantially eroded.”

But a second Hampshire sceptic of the new technology – Meon Valley Conservative MP George Hollingbery – backed the proposed change.

Mr Hollingbery said he remained concerned about the reliability of well casings and the disposal of waste water and would continue to ask those questions.

But he said: “If fracking pipes have to be moved side wards to extract gas then it seems reasonable and practicable to me that there is legislation that allows it.

“However, I believe this so-called 'freedom to frack' is a side issue to the safety of the water supply.”

In the Commons, Mr Cameron insisted it was wrong that fracking would go ahead against people’s will, telling MPs: “That’s simply not the case.”

The eight Hampshire licences include locations in north Southampton, north and west of Winchester, east of Fareham and in the New Forest.

Communities have been offered “compensation” of £100,000 per exploration well and one per cent of the profits - worth several million pounds, say ministers.

However, it is unlikely that all the sites would be fracked – even if drilling went ahead - because many have the potential to generate conventional gas instead.

Comments (26)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:39am Thu 5 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

There'll be lot of controversy here, I know, but before the socialists and their even uglier cousins the Greens start baying, let's remember their hero Attlee expropriated reserves of coal lying at very shallow distances under people's homes. I have met people whose homes collapsed in South Wales in the 60's and 70's because of undermining. That's not going to happen with extraction at the levels we're dealing with in fracking. But we've become a very "fragile" country, ever ready to take offence at everything, so game on.
There'll be lot of controversy here, I know, but before the socialists and their even uglier cousins the Greens start baying, let's remember their hero Attlee expropriated reserves of coal lying at very shallow distances under people's homes. I have met people whose homes collapsed in South Wales in the 60's and 70's because of undermining. That's not going to happen with extraction at the levels we're dealing with in fracking. But we've become a very "fragile" country, ever ready to take offence at everything, so game on. Dai Rear
  • Score: -4

8:09am Thu 5 Jun 14

normal1965 says...

the queen is taking the pi ss.let them frack under her houses and see how she likes it.im losing my faith in the royal family
the queen is taking the pi ss.let them frack under her houses and see how she likes it.im losing my faith in the royal family normal1965
  • Score: -2

9:14am Thu 5 Jun 14

Linesman says...

Dai Rear wrote:
There'll be lot of controversy here, I know, but before the socialists and their even uglier cousins the Greens start baying, let's remember their hero Attlee expropriated reserves of coal lying at very shallow distances under people's homes. I have met people whose homes collapsed in South Wales in the 60's and 70's because of undermining. That's not going to happen with extraction at the levels we're dealing with in fracking. But we've become a very "fragile" country, ever ready to take offence at everything, so game on.
That's strange. There were coal mines in Wales, and elsewhere in the UK, long before the WWI, let alone WWII, which is decades before the first Labour government came to power.

It is during those pre-Labour days that coal mines were death traps, with precious little in the way of 'Health & Safety' considerations, as it would have cut the profits made by the mine owners who, in most cases, built the miners' houses on ground above the coal mines that they worked in.
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: There'll be lot of controversy here, I know, but before the socialists and their even uglier cousins the Greens start baying, let's remember their hero Attlee expropriated reserves of coal lying at very shallow distances under people's homes. I have met people whose homes collapsed in South Wales in the 60's and 70's because of undermining. That's not going to happen with extraction at the levels we're dealing with in fracking. But we've become a very "fragile" country, ever ready to take offence at everything, so game on.[/p][/quote]That's strange. There were coal mines in Wales, and elsewhere in the UK, long before the WWI, let alone WWII, which is decades before the first Labour government came to power. It is during those pre-Labour days that coal mines were death traps, with precious little in the way of 'Health & Safety' considerations, as it would have cut the profits made by the mine owners who, in most cases, built the miners' houses on ground above the coal mines that they worked in. Linesman
  • Score: 1

9:30am Thu 5 Jun 14

skeptik says...

And if you disagree we have secret courts for the soon to be disappeared.
And if you disagree we have secret courts for the soon to be disappeared. skeptik
  • Score: 6

9:55am Thu 5 Jun 14

From the sidelines says...

"Dr Whitehead, a strong opponent of fracking, said: “Utility companies don’t blow rocks up and jet water underground. They do something sensible - giving power and water to homes."

I infer from this fatheaded piece of nonsense that Whitehead does not consider the exploration and exploitation of natural reserves 'sensible'.

Where does the good doctor think the power comes from?

Perhaps the 'political scientist' should take a step back and leave this to the grown-ups who studied geology and engineering.
"Dr Whitehead, a strong opponent of fracking, said: “Utility companies don’t blow rocks up and jet water underground. They do something sensible - giving power and water to homes." I infer from this fatheaded piece of nonsense that Whitehead does not consider the exploration and exploitation of natural reserves 'sensible'. Where does the good doctor think the power comes from? Perhaps the 'political scientist' should take a step back and leave this to the grown-ups who studied geology and engineering. From the sidelines
  • Score: 1

10:34am Thu 5 Jun 14

Linesman says...

From the sidelines wrote:
"Dr Whitehead, a strong opponent of fracking, said: “Utility companies don’t blow rocks up and jet water underground. They do something sensible - giving power and water to homes."

I infer from this fatheaded piece of nonsense that Whitehead does not consider the exploration and exploitation of natural reserves 'sensible'.

Where does the good doctor think the power comes from?

Perhaps the 'political scientist' should take a step back and leave this to the grown-ups who studied geology and engineering.
I think that a lot depends on the way you read what Dr Whitehead said.

There are some in the anti-fracking camp who would claim that massive explosions would be used, causing earth tremors and damage to properties and pollute our water supply.

I read Dr Whitehead's comments as saying that is not the case, and that a more cautious approach is made to secure the supply of power and water to our homes.
[quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: "Dr Whitehead, a strong opponent of fracking, said: “Utility companies don’t blow rocks up and jet water underground. They do something sensible - giving power and water to homes." I infer from this fatheaded piece of nonsense that Whitehead does not consider the exploration and exploitation of natural reserves 'sensible'. Where does the good doctor think the power comes from? Perhaps the 'political scientist' should take a step back and leave this to the grown-ups who studied geology and engineering.[/p][/quote]I think that a lot depends on the way you read what Dr Whitehead said. There are some in the anti-fracking camp who would claim that massive explosions would be used, causing earth tremors and damage to properties and pollute our water supply. I read Dr Whitehead's comments as saying that is not the case, and that a more cautious approach is made to secure the supply of power and water to our homes. Linesman
  • Score: 1

12:00pm Thu 5 Jun 14

southy says...

Linesman wrote:
From the sidelines wrote:
"Dr Whitehead, a strong opponent of fracking, said: “Utility companies don’t blow rocks up and jet water underground. They do something sensible - giving power and water to homes."

I infer from this fatheaded piece of nonsense that Whitehead does not consider the exploration and exploitation of natural reserves 'sensible'.

Where does the good doctor think the power comes from?

Perhaps the 'political scientist' should take a step back and leave this to the grown-ups who studied geology and engineering.
I think that a lot depends on the way you read what Dr Whitehead said.

There are some in the anti-fracking camp who would claim that massive explosions would be used, causing earth tremors and damage to properties and pollute our water supply.

I read Dr Whitehead's comments as saying that is not the case, and that a more cautious approach is made to secure the supply of power and water to our homes.
that would depend on what you call an explosion, Here they are using the explosion force to hydraulic the sudden release of pressure into the piston that will force chemicals to create cracks
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: "Dr Whitehead, a strong opponent of fracking, said: “Utility companies don’t blow rocks up and jet water underground. They do something sensible - giving power and water to homes." I infer from this fatheaded piece of nonsense that Whitehead does not consider the exploration and exploitation of natural reserves 'sensible'. Where does the good doctor think the power comes from? Perhaps the 'political scientist' should take a step back and leave this to the grown-ups who studied geology and engineering.[/p][/quote]I think that a lot depends on the way you read what Dr Whitehead said. There are some in the anti-fracking camp who would claim that massive explosions would be used, causing earth tremors and damage to properties and pollute our water supply. I read Dr Whitehead's comments as saying that is not the case, and that a more cautious approach is made to secure the supply of power and water to our homes.[/p][/quote]that would depend on what you call an explosion, Here they are using the explosion force to hydraulic the sudden release of pressure into the piston that will force chemicals to create cracks southy
  • Score: -1

12:03pm Thu 5 Jun 14

southy says...

Linesman wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
There'll be lot of controversy here, I know, but before the socialists and their even uglier cousins the Greens start baying, let's remember their hero Attlee expropriated reserves of coal lying at very shallow distances under people's homes. I have met people whose homes collapsed in South Wales in the 60's and 70's because of undermining. That's not going to happen with extraction at the levels we're dealing with in fracking. But we've become a very "fragile" country, ever ready to take offence at everything, so game on.
That's strange. There were coal mines in Wales, and elsewhere in the UK, long before the WWI, let alone WWII, which is decades before the first Labour government came to power.

It is during those pre-Labour days that coal mines were death traps, with precious little in the way of 'Health & Safety' considerations, as it would have cut the profits made by the mine owners who, in most cases, built the miners' houses on ground above the coal mines that they worked in.
Also point out that the Greens are Capitalist unless Dai is talking about the Socialist Greens
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: There'll be lot of controversy here, I know, but before the socialists and their even uglier cousins the Greens start baying, let's remember their hero Attlee expropriated reserves of coal lying at very shallow distances under people's homes. I have met people whose homes collapsed in South Wales in the 60's and 70's because of undermining. That's not going to happen with extraction at the levels we're dealing with in fracking. But we've become a very "fragile" country, ever ready to take offence at everything, so game on.[/p][/quote]That's strange. There were coal mines in Wales, and elsewhere in the UK, long before the WWI, let alone WWII, which is decades before the first Labour government came to power. It is during those pre-Labour days that coal mines were death traps, with precious little in the way of 'Health & Safety' considerations, as it would have cut the profits made by the mine owners who, in most cases, built the miners' houses on ground above the coal mines that they worked in.[/p][/quote]Also point out that the Greens are Capitalist unless Dai is talking about the Socialist Greens southy
  • Score: -5

12:12pm Thu 5 Jun 14

southy says...

What I like best was what Greenpeace done out side of Cameron Home.

http://www.independe
nt.co.uk/news/uk/dav
id-camerons-house-fr
acked-by-greenpeace-
9485435.html

They even knock on the door, it give an over size check of £50 for compensation.

These new laws that the Government will pass and other party,s will support the Tory's including Labour, will mean that they can legally set up a rig on common ground and in parks, no where will be safe.
What I like best was what Greenpeace done out side of Cameron Home. http://www.independe nt.co.uk/news/uk/dav id-camerons-house-fr acked-by-greenpeace- 9485435.html They even knock on the door, it give an over size check of £50 for compensation. These new laws that the Government will pass and other party,s will support the Tory's including Labour, will mean that they can legally set up a rig on common ground and in parks, no where will be safe. southy
  • Score: 3

12:15pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Paramjit Bahia says...

Linesman wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
There'll be lot of controversy here, I know, but before the socialists and their even uglier cousins the Greens start baying, let's remember their hero Attlee expropriated reserves of coal lying at very shallow distances under people's homes. I have met people whose homes collapsed in South Wales in the 60's and 70's because of undermining. That's not going to happen with extraction at the levels we're dealing with in fracking. But we've become a very "fragile" country, ever ready to take offence at everything, so game on.
That's strange. There were coal mines in Wales, and elsewhere in the UK, long before the WWI, let alone WWII, which is decades before the first Labour government came to power.

It is during those pre-Labour days that coal mines were death traps, with precious little in the way of 'Health & Safety' considerations, as it would have cut the profits made by the mine owners who, in most cases, built the miners' houses on ground above the coal mines that they worked in.
Reasonably well informed Linesman's knowledge of British industrial history is disappointment.

Fact: Coal mines with highly dangerous working conditions existed even long before the good old Labour Party with human values was created by the Trade Union Movement, as their political arm to protect working class from the parasitic Tories and the Liberals who religiously looked after the interests of the Toffs; The evil monsters whose chimnies used to be cleaned by forcing small children into those.

He should be telling the apologists and mouth pieces of the Tories that because of Labour leaders like Attlee and Bevan many cancers of our society were cured and not only coal but many other industries were also made lot safer.

But it is a great pity that while aping to be be Tories and Lib-Dem the Thatcherised NuLabour has undone most of the admirable achievements of old Labour governments.

Only good news is that shameless support for fracking by the arrogant out of touch posh boys of the Tories is likely to finish whatever little will be left of CONservative Party after the Nucler War between Treasa May and Gove
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: There'll be lot of controversy here, I know, but before the socialists and their even uglier cousins the Greens start baying, let's remember their hero Attlee expropriated reserves of coal lying at very shallow distances under people's homes. I have met people whose homes collapsed in South Wales in the 60's and 70's because of undermining. That's not going to happen with extraction at the levels we're dealing with in fracking. But we've become a very "fragile" country, ever ready to take offence at everything, so game on.[/p][/quote]That's strange. There were coal mines in Wales, and elsewhere in the UK, long before the WWI, let alone WWII, which is decades before the first Labour government came to power. It is during those pre-Labour days that coal mines were death traps, with precious little in the way of 'Health & Safety' considerations, as it would have cut the profits made by the mine owners who, in most cases, built the miners' houses on ground above the coal mines that they worked in.[/p][/quote]Reasonably well informed Linesman's knowledge of British industrial history is disappointment. Fact: Coal mines with highly dangerous working conditions existed even long before the good old Labour Party with human values was created by the Trade Union Movement, as their political arm to protect working class from the parasitic Tories and the Liberals who religiously looked after the interests of the Toffs; The evil monsters whose chimnies used to be cleaned by forcing small children into those. He should be telling the apologists and mouth pieces of the Tories that because of Labour leaders like Attlee and Bevan many cancers of our society were cured and not only coal but many other industries were also made lot safer. But it is a great pity that while aping to be be Tories and Lib-Dem the Thatcherised NuLabour has undone most of the admirable achievements of old Labour governments. Only good news is that shameless support for fracking by the arrogant out of touch posh boys of the Tories is likely to finish whatever little will be left of CONservative Party after the Nucler War between Treasa May and Gove Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 1

12:30pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Linesman says...

southy wrote:
Linesman wrote:
From the sidelines wrote:
"Dr Whitehead, a strong opponent of fracking, said: “Utility companies don’t blow rocks up and jet water underground. They do something sensible - giving power and water to homes."

I infer from this fatheaded piece of nonsense that Whitehead does not consider the exploration and exploitation of natural reserves 'sensible'.

Where does the good doctor think the power comes from?

Perhaps the 'political scientist' should take a step back and leave this to the grown-ups who studied geology and engineering.
I think that a lot depends on the way you read what Dr Whitehead said.

There are some in the anti-fracking camp who would claim that massive explosions would be used, causing earth tremors and damage to properties and pollute our water supply.

I read Dr Whitehead's comments as saying that is not the case, and that a more cautious approach is made to secure the supply of power and water to our homes.
that would depend on what you call an explosion, Here they are using the explosion force to hydraulic the sudden release of pressure into the piston that will force chemicals to create cracks
I am aware of the procedure.
I also know that if you let off a 'banger' on Guy Fawkes night, it causes an explosion.
Dynamite has been used in coal mines, and that caused an explosion.

It is my understanding that the depth at which fracking takes place is at quite a few hundred feet (sorry, not into metric!) and it would consist of a number of relatively small explosions along a long, horizontal borehole.

The country needs an energy source.

There are not enough rivers and reservoirs to provide turbo power. Nimbys do not want wind turbines because it would spoil their view, may harm wildlife at sea and inland.
They do not Nuclear Power, and cite Chernoble and the recent catastrophe in Japan.
Coal could fire power stations, but it increases pollution, so the Greens object to that, as do environmental agencies.
Tidal power is an excellent idea, but at present that is all it is, and to the best of my knowledge. there are none in operation.
Solar farms are great during the day, but power has to be created to use at the time, and also to be stored to supply during the night, and that means one hell of a lot of batteries! It also means covering a lot of ground that could be used to produce food. Food for a population that is steadily increasing.

All of the objectors to those alternatives to oil-powered producers of electricity, still want to have their electrically powered gadgets at home and at work, but never come up with a sensible, viable alternative.

Fracking has to be the answer - but of course it has to be done under someone else's property, not mine!
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: "Dr Whitehead, a strong opponent of fracking, said: “Utility companies don’t blow rocks up and jet water underground. They do something sensible - giving power and water to homes." I infer from this fatheaded piece of nonsense that Whitehead does not consider the exploration and exploitation of natural reserves 'sensible'. Where does the good doctor think the power comes from? Perhaps the 'political scientist' should take a step back and leave this to the grown-ups who studied geology and engineering.[/p][/quote]I think that a lot depends on the way you read what Dr Whitehead said. There are some in the anti-fracking camp who would claim that massive explosions would be used, causing earth tremors and damage to properties and pollute our water supply. I read Dr Whitehead's comments as saying that is not the case, and that a more cautious approach is made to secure the supply of power and water to our homes.[/p][/quote]that would depend on what you call an explosion, Here they are using the explosion force to hydraulic the sudden release of pressure into the piston that will force chemicals to create cracks[/p][/quote]I am aware of the procedure. I also know that if you let off a 'banger' on Guy Fawkes night, it causes an explosion. Dynamite has been used in coal mines, and that caused an explosion. It is my understanding that the depth at which fracking takes place is at quite a few hundred feet (sorry, not into metric!) and it would consist of a number of relatively small explosions along a long, horizontal borehole. The country needs an energy source. There are not enough rivers and reservoirs to provide turbo power. Nimbys do not want wind turbines because it would spoil their view, may harm wildlife at sea and inland. They do not Nuclear Power, and cite Chernoble and the recent catastrophe in Japan. Coal could fire power stations, but it increases pollution, so the Greens object to that, as do environmental agencies. Tidal power is an excellent idea, but at present that is all it is, and to the best of my knowledge. there are none in operation. Solar farms are great during the day, but power has to be created to use at the time, and also to be stored to supply during the night, and that means one hell of a lot of batteries! It also means covering a lot of ground that could be used to produce food. Food for a population that is steadily increasing. All of the objectors to those alternatives to oil-powered producers of electricity, still want to have their electrically powered gadgets at home and at work, but never come up with a sensible, viable alternative. Fracking has to be the answer - but of course it has to be done under someone else's property, not mine! Linesman
  • Score: 0

12:30pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Linesman says...

southy wrote:
Linesman wrote:
From the sidelines wrote:
"Dr Whitehead, a strong opponent of fracking, said: “Utility companies don’t blow rocks up and jet water underground. They do something sensible - giving power and water to homes."

I infer from this fatheaded piece of nonsense that Whitehead does not consider the exploration and exploitation of natural reserves 'sensible'.

Where does the good doctor think the power comes from?

Perhaps the 'political scientist' should take a step back and leave this to the grown-ups who studied geology and engineering.
I think that a lot depends on the way you read what Dr Whitehead said.

There are some in the anti-fracking camp who would claim that massive explosions would be used, causing earth tremors and damage to properties and pollute our water supply.

I read Dr Whitehead's comments as saying that is not the case, and that a more cautious approach is made to secure the supply of power and water to our homes.
that would depend on what you call an explosion, Here they are using the explosion force to hydraulic the sudden release of pressure into the piston that will force chemicals to create cracks
I am aware of the procedure.
I also know that if you let off a 'banger' on Guy Fawkes night, it causes an explosion.
Dynamite has been used in coal mines, and that caused an explosion.

It is my understanding that the depth at which fracking takes place is at quite a few hundred feet (sorry, not into metric!) and it would consist of a number of relatively small explosions along a long, horizontal borehole.

The country needs an energy source.

There are not enough rivers and reservoirs to provide turbo power. Nimbys do not want wind turbines because it would spoil their view, may harm wildlife at sea and inland.
They do not Nuclear Power, and cite Chernoble and the recent catastrophe in Japan.
Coal could fire power stations, but it increases pollution, so the Greens object to that, as do environmental agencies.
Tidal power is an excellent idea, but at present that is all it is, and to the best of my knowledge. there are none in operation.
Solar farms are great during the day, but power has to be created to use at the time, and also to be stored to supply during the night, and that means one hell of a lot of batteries! It also means covering a lot of ground that could be used to produce food. Food for a population that is steadily increasing.

All of the objectors to those alternatives to oil-powered producers of electricity, still want to have their electrically powered gadgets at home and at work, but never come up with a sensible, viable alternative.

Fracking has to be the answer - but of course it has to be done under someone else's property, not mine!
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: "Dr Whitehead, a strong opponent of fracking, said: “Utility companies don’t blow rocks up and jet water underground. They do something sensible - giving power and water to homes." I infer from this fatheaded piece of nonsense that Whitehead does not consider the exploration and exploitation of natural reserves 'sensible'. Where does the good doctor think the power comes from? Perhaps the 'political scientist' should take a step back and leave this to the grown-ups who studied geology and engineering.[/p][/quote]I think that a lot depends on the way you read what Dr Whitehead said. There are some in the anti-fracking camp who would claim that massive explosions would be used, causing earth tremors and damage to properties and pollute our water supply. I read Dr Whitehead's comments as saying that is not the case, and that a more cautious approach is made to secure the supply of power and water to our homes.[/p][/quote]that would depend on what you call an explosion, Here they are using the explosion force to hydraulic the sudden release of pressure into the piston that will force chemicals to create cracks[/p][/quote]I am aware of the procedure. I also know that if you let off a 'banger' on Guy Fawkes night, it causes an explosion. Dynamite has been used in coal mines, and that caused an explosion. It is my understanding that the depth at which fracking takes place is at quite a few hundred feet (sorry, not into metric!) and it would consist of a number of relatively small explosions along a long, horizontal borehole. The country needs an energy source. There are not enough rivers and reservoirs to provide turbo power. Nimbys do not want wind turbines because it would spoil their view, may harm wildlife at sea and inland. They do not Nuclear Power, and cite Chernoble and the recent catastrophe in Japan. Coal could fire power stations, but it increases pollution, so the Greens object to that, as do environmental agencies. Tidal power is an excellent idea, but at present that is all it is, and to the best of my knowledge. there are none in operation. Solar farms are great during the day, but power has to be created to use at the time, and also to be stored to supply during the night, and that means one hell of a lot of batteries! It also means covering a lot of ground that could be used to produce food. Food for a population that is steadily increasing. All of the objectors to those alternatives to oil-powered producers of electricity, still want to have their electrically powered gadgets at home and at work, but never come up with a sensible, viable alternative. Fracking has to be the answer - but of course it has to be done under someone else's property, not mine! Linesman
  • Score: 3

1:13pm Thu 5 Jun 14

southy says...

Linesman wrote:
southy wrote:
Linesman wrote:
From the sidelines wrote:
"Dr Whitehead, a strong opponent of fracking, said: “Utility companies don’t blow rocks up and jet water underground. They do something sensible - giving power and water to homes."

I infer from this fatheaded piece of nonsense that Whitehead does not consider the exploration and exploitation of natural reserves 'sensible'.

Where does the good doctor think the power comes from?

Perhaps the 'political scientist' should take a step back and leave this to the grown-ups who studied geology and engineering.
I think that a lot depends on the way you read what Dr Whitehead said.

There are some in the anti-fracking camp who would claim that massive explosions would be used, causing earth tremors and damage to properties and pollute our water supply.

I read Dr Whitehead's comments as saying that is not the case, and that a more cautious approach is made to secure the supply of power and water to our homes.
that would depend on what you call an explosion, Here they are using the explosion force to hydraulic the sudden release of pressure into the piston that will force chemicals to create cracks
I am aware of the procedure.
I also know that if you let off a 'banger' on Guy Fawkes night, it causes an explosion.
Dynamite has been used in coal mines, and that caused an explosion.

It is my understanding that the depth at which fracking takes place is at quite a few hundred feet (sorry, not into metric!) and it would consist of a number of relatively small explosions along a long, horizontal borehole.

The country needs an energy source.

There are not enough rivers and reservoirs to provide turbo power. Nimbys do not want wind turbines because it would spoil their view, may harm wildlife at sea and inland.
They do not Nuclear Power, and cite Chernoble and the recent catastrophe in Japan.
Coal could fire power stations, but it increases pollution, so the Greens object to that, as do environmental agencies.
Tidal power is an excellent idea, but at present that is all it is, and to the best of my knowledge. there are none in operation.
Solar farms are great during the day, but power has to be created to use at the time, and also to be stored to supply during the night, and that means one hell of a lot of batteries! It also means covering a lot of ground that could be used to produce food. Food for a population that is steadily increasing.

All of the objectors to those alternatives to oil-powered producers of electricity, still want to have their electrically powered gadgets at home and at work, but never come up with a sensible, viable alternative.

Fracking has to be the answer - but of course it has to be done under someone else's property, not mine!
Off course not my home lets start with Cameron home first. :-)

The way I see Nuclear power if they can work out away to recycle every thing that is used then my objections would go away well nearly all of them, Nuclear power is not as clean or as cheap as they say it is, cheap at producing power yes that I will agree on, but the cost of before and after makes it one of the most expensive ways, just because some thing is clear and can't be seen do not make it clean, The Med sea is the most polluted body of water in the world and yet is clear water what makes this sea the most polluted its a mass off body of water where the water all ways flows into and never out.

Coal well not coal I would turn it into coke (take out all the chemicals in coal for other uses) Coke burns longer and hotter than coal, so Coke power station I would be fore so long they have a scrubber fitted to the stack.

Tidal power good idea but it would only work well in areas that have a big tidal range like here in this area it would be a total waste of time our tidal range is shallow 4.8 meters at best on Spring tides, west country like in the Bristol Sound 4.8 meters is a neap tide for them there range on spring tides can go nearly 8 meters. There have been tidal power before like down at Ashlett Creek the old mill that was once there used the tide to fill the tidal ponds and could work the mill 24 hours (as it also had a reverse gearing to allow for rising tides so it did not matter which way the wheel was moving) there was another one down at Fishbourn.
River power could be our answer, one thing we do get a lot of is rain, but people think of Hydro Dams, did the First Industrial Revolution use Dams no they used the natural coarse of the river they took a bend in the river and cut across to shorten the route and place a weir in the river, this how they done it and think what it was made off very heavy oak and iron that had a lot of fiction, how much more energy could be produce using modern light weight materials like nylon.
That is a missing leading when they tell you a number of explosions along horizontal borehole because they leave out the fact along that horizontal borehole the explosion force is spread out in 360 degrees most of that pressure will be force up wards and not downwards or the side, the same ways as depth chargers works or any other explosion under water most of the shock wave force go's upwards
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: "Dr Whitehead, a strong opponent of fracking, said: “Utility companies don’t blow rocks up and jet water underground. They do something sensible - giving power and water to homes." I infer from this fatheaded piece of nonsense that Whitehead does not consider the exploration and exploitation of natural reserves 'sensible'. Where does the good doctor think the power comes from? Perhaps the 'political scientist' should take a step back and leave this to the grown-ups who studied geology and engineering.[/p][/quote]I think that a lot depends on the way you read what Dr Whitehead said. There are some in the anti-fracking camp who would claim that massive explosions would be used, causing earth tremors and damage to properties and pollute our water supply. I read Dr Whitehead's comments as saying that is not the case, and that a more cautious approach is made to secure the supply of power and water to our homes.[/p][/quote]that would depend on what you call an explosion, Here they are using the explosion force to hydraulic the sudden release of pressure into the piston that will force chemicals to create cracks[/p][/quote]I am aware of the procedure. I also know that if you let off a 'banger' on Guy Fawkes night, it causes an explosion. Dynamite has been used in coal mines, and that caused an explosion. It is my understanding that the depth at which fracking takes place is at quite a few hundred feet (sorry, not into metric!) and it would consist of a number of relatively small explosions along a long, horizontal borehole. The country needs an energy source. There are not enough rivers and reservoirs to provide turbo power. Nimbys do not want wind turbines because it would spoil their view, may harm wildlife at sea and inland. They do not Nuclear Power, and cite Chernoble and the recent catastrophe in Japan. Coal could fire power stations, but it increases pollution, so the Greens object to that, as do environmental agencies. Tidal power is an excellent idea, but at present that is all it is, and to the best of my knowledge. there are none in operation. Solar farms are great during the day, but power has to be created to use at the time, and also to be stored to supply during the night, and that means one hell of a lot of batteries! It also means covering a lot of ground that could be used to produce food. Food for a population that is steadily increasing. All of the objectors to those alternatives to oil-powered producers of electricity, still want to have their electrically powered gadgets at home and at work, but never come up with a sensible, viable alternative. Fracking has to be the answer - but of course it has to be done under someone else's property, not mine![/p][/quote]Off course not my home lets start with Cameron home first. :-) The way I see Nuclear power if they can work out away to recycle every thing that is used then my objections would go away well nearly all of them, Nuclear power is not as clean or as cheap as they say it is, cheap at producing power yes that I will agree on, but the cost of before and after makes it one of the most expensive ways, just because some thing is clear and can't be seen do not make it clean, The Med sea is the most polluted body of water in the world and yet is clear water what makes this sea the most polluted its a mass off body of water where the water all ways flows into and never out. Coal well not coal I would turn it into coke (take out all the chemicals in coal for other uses) Coke burns longer and hotter than coal, so Coke power station I would be fore so long they have a scrubber fitted to the stack. Tidal power good idea but it would only work well in areas that have a big tidal range like here in this area it would be a total waste of time our tidal range is shallow 4.8 meters at best on Spring tides, west country like in the Bristol Sound 4.8 meters is a neap tide for them there range on spring tides can go nearly 8 meters. There have been tidal power before like down at Ashlett Creek the old mill that was once there used the tide to fill the tidal ponds and could work the mill 24 hours (as it also had a reverse gearing to allow for rising tides so it did not matter which way the wheel was moving) there was another one down at Fishbourn. River power could be our answer, one thing we do get a lot of is rain, but people think of Hydro Dams, did the First Industrial Revolution use Dams no they used the natural coarse of the river they took a bend in the river and cut across to shorten the route and place a weir in the river, this how they done it and think what it was made off very heavy oak and iron that had a lot of fiction, how much more energy could be produce using modern light weight materials like nylon. That is a missing leading when they tell you a number of explosions along horizontal borehole because they leave out the fact along that horizontal borehole the explosion force is spread out in 360 degrees most of that pressure will be force up wards and not downwards or the side, the same ways as depth chargers works or any other explosion under water most of the shock wave force go's upwards southy
  • Score: 0

1:32pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Paramjit Bahia says...

Linesman wrote:
southy wrote:
Linesman wrote:
From the sidelines wrote:
"Dr Whitehead, a strong opponent of fracking, said: “Utility companies don’t blow rocks up and jet water underground. They do something sensible - giving power and water to homes."

I infer from this fatheaded piece of nonsense that Whitehead does not consider the exploration and exploitation of natural reserves 'sensible'.

Where does the good doctor think the power comes from?

Perhaps the 'political scientist' should take a step back and leave this to the grown-ups who studied geology and engineering.
I think that a lot depends on the way you read what Dr Whitehead said.

There are some in the anti-fracking camp who would claim that massive explosions would be used, causing earth tremors and damage to properties and pollute our water supply.

I read Dr Whitehead's comments as saying that is not the case, and that a more cautious approach is made to secure the supply of power and water to our homes.
that would depend on what you call an explosion, Here they are using the explosion force to hydraulic the sudden release of pressure into the piston that will force chemicals to create cracks
I am aware of the procedure.
I also know that if you let off a 'banger' on Guy Fawkes night, it causes an explosion.
Dynamite has been used in coal mines, and that caused an explosion.

It is my understanding that the depth at which fracking takes place is at quite a few hundred feet (sorry, not into metric!) and it would consist of a number of relatively small explosions along a long, horizontal borehole.

The country needs an energy source.

There are not enough rivers and reservoirs to provide turbo power. Nimbys do not want wind turbines because it would spoil their view, may harm wildlife at sea and inland.
They do not Nuclear Power, and cite Chernoble and the recent catastrophe in Japan.
Coal could fire power stations, but it increases pollution, so the Greens object to that, as do environmental agencies.
Tidal power is an excellent idea, but at present that is all it is, and to the best of my knowledge. there are none in operation.
Solar farms are great during the day, but power has to be created to use at the time, and also to be stored to supply during the night, and that means one hell of a lot of batteries! It also means covering a lot of ground that could be used to produce food. Food for a population that is steadily increasing.

All of the objectors to those alternatives to oil-powered producers of electricity, still want to have their electrically powered gadgets at home and at work, but never come up with a sensible, viable alternative.

Fracking has to be the answer - but of course it has to be done under someone else's property, not mine!
Considering you think there are not enough rivers (The argument is reasonable if we ignore the unusual floods few months back) and we need water, which when we are lucky enough to have a good summer runs short and hose pipe bans kick in, where do you think the fracking procedures will be getting the enormous supply of water required?

Many areas in USA are experiencing problem of water supply because of very high consumption for fracking. And in some areas even whatever little water is left has been contaminated. Mini earthquakes have also been caused by fracking, as people near Blackpool also noticed due to the experimental madness in the UK.

Yes you are right about various members of the NIMBY brigade and professional moaners, who want to preserve wind mills but object to wind turbines etc. To confront them and exposing their hypocrisies could be better option than adopting the high risk option of fracking.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: "Dr Whitehead, a strong opponent of fracking, said: “Utility companies don’t blow rocks up and jet water underground. They do something sensible - giving power and water to homes." I infer from this fatheaded piece of nonsense that Whitehead does not consider the exploration and exploitation of natural reserves 'sensible'. Where does the good doctor think the power comes from? Perhaps the 'political scientist' should take a step back and leave this to the grown-ups who studied geology and engineering.[/p][/quote]I think that a lot depends on the way you read what Dr Whitehead said. There are some in the anti-fracking camp who would claim that massive explosions would be used, causing earth tremors and damage to properties and pollute our water supply. I read Dr Whitehead's comments as saying that is not the case, and that a more cautious approach is made to secure the supply of power and water to our homes.[/p][/quote]that would depend on what you call an explosion, Here they are using the explosion force to hydraulic the sudden release of pressure into the piston that will force chemicals to create cracks[/p][/quote]I am aware of the procedure. I also know that if you let off a 'banger' on Guy Fawkes night, it causes an explosion. Dynamite has been used in coal mines, and that caused an explosion. It is my understanding that the depth at which fracking takes place is at quite a few hundred feet (sorry, not into metric!) and it would consist of a number of relatively small explosions along a long, horizontal borehole. The country needs an energy source. There are not enough rivers and reservoirs to provide turbo power. Nimbys do not want wind turbines because it would spoil their view, may harm wildlife at sea and inland. They do not Nuclear Power, and cite Chernoble and the recent catastrophe in Japan. Coal could fire power stations, but it increases pollution, so the Greens object to that, as do environmental agencies. Tidal power is an excellent idea, but at present that is all it is, and to the best of my knowledge. there are none in operation. Solar farms are great during the day, but power has to be created to use at the time, and also to be stored to supply during the night, and that means one hell of a lot of batteries! It also means covering a lot of ground that could be used to produce food. Food for a population that is steadily increasing. All of the objectors to those alternatives to oil-powered producers of electricity, still want to have their electrically powered gadgets at home and at work, but never come up with a sensible, viable alternative. Fracking has to be the answer - but of course it has to be done under someone else's property, not mine![/p][/quote]Considering you think there are not enough rivers (The argument is reasonable if we ignore the unusual floods few months back) and we need water, which when we are lucky enough to have a good summer runs short and hose pipe bans kick in, where do you think the fracking procedures will be getting the enormous supply of water required? Many areas in USA are experiencing problem of water supply because of very high consumption for fracking. And in some areas even whatever little water is left has been contaminated. Mini earthquakes have also been caused by fracking, as people near Blackpool also noticed due to the experimental madness in the UK. Yes you are right about various members of the NIMBY brigade and professional moaners, who want to preserve wind mills but object to wind turbines etc. To confront them and exposing their hypocrisies could be better option than adopting the high risk option of fracking. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

2:02pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Interserie says...

There is some mis-infomation in this article. The existing licences which cover much of South Hampshire are for drilling to access and extract gas and oil using conventional methods NOT fracking.

I know this to be the case, as I live on top of one of the most likely sites for drilling near Hedge End which was the subject of much interest a couple of years ago and we obtained copies of the licences to confirm there were no plans for fracking....not I should say because I object to Fracking but I was concerned about SO30 becoming invaded by a load of left-wing Green nutters.
There is some mis-infomation in this article. The existing licences which cover much of South Hampshire are for drilling to access and extract gas and oil using conventional methods NOT fracking. I know this to be the case, as I live on top of one of the most likely sites for drilling near Hedge End which was the subject of much interest a couple of years ago and we obtained copies of the licences to confirm there were no plans for fracking....not I should say because I object to Fracking but I was concerned about SO30 becoming invaded by a load of left-wing Green nutters. Interserie
  • Score: 3

5:09pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Linesman wrote:
southy wrote:
Linesman wrote:
From the sidelines wrote:
"Dr Whitehead, a strong opponent of fracking, said: “Utility companies don’t blow rocks up and jet water underground. They do something sensible - giving power and water to homes."

I infer from this fatheaded piece of nonsense that Whitehead does not consider the exploration and exploitation of natural reserves 'sensible'.

Where does the good doctor think the power comes from?

Perhaps the 'political scientist' should take a step back and leave this to the grown-ups who studied geology and engineering.
I think that a lot depends on the way you read what Dr Whitehead said.

There are some in the anti-fracking camp who would claim that massive explosions would be used, causing earth tremors and damage to properties and pollute our water supply.

I read Dr Whitehead's comments as saying that is not the case, and that a more cautious approach is made to secure the supply of power and water to our homes.
that would depend on what you call an explosion, Here they are using the explosion force to hydraulic the sudden release of pressure into the piston that will force chemicals to create cracks
I am aware of the procedure.
I also know that if you let off a 'banger' on Guy Fawkes night, it causes an explosion.
Dynamite has been used in coal mines, and that caused an explosion.

It is my understanding that the depth at which fracking takes place is at quite a few hundred feet (sorry, not into metric!) and it would consist of a number of relatively small explosions along a long, horizontal borehole.

The country needs an energy source.

There are not enough rivers and reservoirs to provide turbo power. Nimbys do not want wind turbines because it would spoil their view, may harm wildlife at sea and inland.
They do not Nuclear Power, and cite Chernoble and the recent catastrophe in Japan.
Coal could fire power stations, but it increases pollution, so the Greens object to that, as do environmental agencies.
Tidal power is an excellent idea, but at present that is all it is, and to the best of my knowledge. there are none in operation.
Solar farms are great during the day, but power has to be created to use at the time, and also to be stored to supply during the night, and that means one hell of a lot of batteries! It also means covering a lot of ground that could be used to produce food. Food for a population that is steadily increasing.

All of the objectors to those alternatives to oil-powered producers of electricity, still want to have their electrically powered gadgets at home and at work, but never come up with a sensible, viable alternative.

Fracking has to be the answer - but of course it has to be done under someone else's property, not mine!
Strangford Lough in Northern Ireland has at least ONE tidal energy device.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: "Dr Whitehead, a strong opponent of fracking, said: “Utility companies don’t blow rocks up and jet water underground. They do something sensible - giving power and water to homes." I infer from this fatheaded piece of nonsense that Whitehead does not consider the exploration and exploitation of natural reserves 'sensible'. Where does the good doctor think the power comes from? Perhaps the 'political scientist' should take a step back and leave this to the grown-ups who studied geology and engineering.[/p][/quote]I think that a lot depends on the way you read what Dr Whitehead said. There are some in the anti-fracking camp who would claim that massive explosions would be used, causing earth tremors and damage to properties and pollute our water supply. I read Dr Whitehead's comments as saying that is not the case, and that a more cautious approach is made to secure the supply of power and water to our homes.[/p][/quote]that would depend on what you call an explosion, Here they are using the explosion force to hydraulic the sudden release of pressure into the piston that will force chemicals to create cracks[/p][/quote]I am aware of the procedure. I also know that if you let off a 'banger' on Guy Fawkes night, it causes an explosion. Dynamite has been used in coal mines, and that caused an explosion. It is my understanding that the depth at which fracking takes place is at quite a few hundred feet (sorry, not into metric!) and it would consist of a number of relatively small explosions along a long, horizontal borehole. The country needs an energy source. There are not enough rivers and reservoirs to provide turbo power. Nimbys do not want wind turbines because it would spoil their view, may harm wildlife at sea and inland. They do not Nuclear Power, and cite Chernoble and the recent catastrophe in Japan. Coal could fire power stations, but it increases pollution, so the Greens object to that, as do environmental agencies. Tidal power is an excellent idea, but at present that is all it is, and to the best of my knowledge. there are none in operation. Solar farms are great during the day, but power has to be created to use at the time, and also to be stored to supply during the night, and that means one hell of a lot of batteries! It also means covering a lot of ground that could be used to produce food. Food for a population that is steadily increasing. All of the objectors to those alternatives to oil-powered producers of electricity, still want to have their electrically powered gadgets at home and at work, but never come up with a sensible, viable alternative. Fracking has to be the answer - but of course it has to be done under someone else's property, not mine![/p][/quote]Strangford Lough in Northern Ireland has at least ONE tidal energy device. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -3

8:33pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

Linesman wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
There'll be lot of controversy here, I know, but before the socialists and their even uglier cousins the Greens start baying, let's remember their hero Attlee expropriated reserves of coal lying at very shallow distances under people's homes. I have met people whose homes collapsed in South Wales in the 60's and 70's because of undermining. That's not going to happen with extraction at the levels we're dealing with in fracking. But we've become a very "fragile" country, ever ready to take offence at everything, so game on.
That's strange. There were coal mines in Wales, and elsewhere in the UK, long before the WWI, let alone WWII, which is decades before the first Labour government came to power.

It is during those pre-Labour days that coal mines were death traps, with precious little in the way of 'Health & Safety' considerations, as it would have cut the profits made by the mine owners who, in most cases, built the miners' houses on ground above the coal mines that they worked in.
Aberfan tip, where the A470 now is, was wholly created after expropriation in the 40's.The houses at Bournville I describe were undermined by the workings of the South Griffin, after expropriation. The underminings at Edwardsville were created by Treharris Colliery after expropriation. The landslip at Henwaun was created by the demands of the Ministry of Power during WW2. Silvertown at Enfield Lock was an HMG creation. The evil "profits" put meat on the tables of farm labourers who flocked to the Rhondda to escape "the idiocy of rural life" to quote your Prophet.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: There'll be lot of controversy here, I know, but before the socialists and their even uglier cousins the Greens start baying, let's remember their hero Attlee expropriated reserves of coal lying at very shallow distances under people's homes. I have met people whose homes collapsed in South Wales in the 60's and 70's because of undermining. That's not going to happen with extraction at the levels we're dealing with in fracking. But we've become a very "fragile" country, ever ready to take offence at everything, so game on.[/p][/quote]That's strange. There were coal mines in Wales, and elsewhere in the UK, long before the WWI, let alone WWII, which is decades before the first Labour government came to power. It is during those pre-Labour days that coal mines were death traps, with precious little in the way of 'Health & Safety' considerations, as it would have cut the profits made by the mine owners who, in most cases, built the miners' houses on ground above the coal mines that they worked in.[/p][/quote]Aberfan tip, where the A470 now is, was wholly created after expropriation in the 40's.The houses at Bournville I describe were undermined by the workings of the South Griffin, after expropriation. The underminings at Edwardsville were created by Treharris Colliery after expropriation. The landslip at Henwaun was created by the demands of the Ministry of Power during WW2. Silvertown at Enfield Lock was an HMG creation. The evil "profits" put meat on the tables of farm labourers who flocked to the Rhondda to escape "the idiocy of rural life" to quote your Prophet. Dai Rear
  • Score: 0

8:37pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

"Also point out that the Greens are Capitalist unless Dai is talking about the Socialist Greens"
I'm talking about the greens your mam told you to eat to cure your spots Southy.
In passing, apart from your goodself who is not an evil capiterlist?
"Also point out that the Greens are Capitalist unless Dai is talking about the Socialist Greens" I'm talking about the greens your mam told you to eat to cure your spots Southy. In passing, apart from your goodself who is not an evil capiterlist? Dai Rear
  • Score: 1

10:45pm Thu 5 Jun 14

southy says...

Dai Rear wrote:
"Also point out that the Greens are Capitalist unless Dai is talking about the Socialist Greens"
I'm talking about the greens your mam told you to eat to cure your spots Southy.
In passing, apart from your goodself who is not an evil capiterlist?
Then your on about the Capitalist Greens as in the Green Party.
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: "Also point out that the Greens are Capitalist unless Dai is talking about the Socialist Greens" I'm talking about the greens your mam told you to eat to cure your spots Southy. In passing, apart from your goodself who is not an evil capiterlist?[/p][/quote]Then your on about the Capitalist Greens as in the Green Party. southy
  • Score: 0

7:48am Fri 6 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

I'll take that as a "no one" in answer to my question then Southy.
I'll take that as a "no one" in answer to my question then Southy. Dai Rear
  • Score: -1

1:02pm Fri 6 Jun 14

southy says...

Dai Rear wrote:
I'll take that as a "no one" in answer to my question then Southy.
You had an answer, The Socialist Greens have no platform at the moment they are to small in number, They left the Green Party on the day the Green party put up a policy of cuts, but then I not surprise what the Green Party did (even lo I had hopes for them at one point) The Green Party is made from mainly from Right Wing Green activist Groups
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: I'll take that as a "no one" in answer to my question then Southy.[/p][/quote]You had an answer, The Socialist Greens have no platform at the moment they are to small in number, They left the Green Party on the day the Green party put up a policy of cuts, but then I not surprise what the Green Party did (even lo I had hopes for them at one point) The Green Party is made from mainly from Right Wing Green activist Groups southy
  • Score: 1

1:12pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

southy wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
I'll take that as a "no one" in answer to my question then Southy.
You had an answer, The Socialist Greens have no platform at the moment they are to small in number, They left the Green Party on the day the Green party put up a policy of cuts, but then I not surprise what the Green Party did (even lo I had hopes for them at one point) The Green Party is made from mainly from Right Wing Green activist Groups
Does what you have just said remind you in any way of "The Life of Brian"? Will you be a schismatic when you grow up S?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: I'll take that as a "no one" in answer to my question then Southy.[/p][/quote]You had an answer, The Socialist Greens have no platform at the moment they are to small in number, They left the Green Party on the day the Green party put up a policy of cuts, but then I not surprise what the Green Party did (even lo I had hopes for them at one point) The Green Party is made from mainly from Right Wing Green activist Groups[/p][/quote]Does what you have just said remind you in any way of "The Life of Brian"? Will you be a schismatic when you grow up S? Dai Rear
  • Score: -1

2:42pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Dan Soton says...

,,


Onshore FREAKIN Fracking Is So Passé



https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=qlTA3rnp
gzU




,,
,, Onshore FREAKIN Fracking Is So Passé https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=qlTA3rnp gzU ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 2

2:47pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
,,


Onshore FREAKIN Fracking Is So Passé



https://www.youtube.

com/watch?v=qlTA3rnp

gzU




,,
,,


If you have to Frack


Frack Offshore For GEOTHERMAL Energy



http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/news/national
/news/11248542.Frack
ing_company_warns_ov
er_access/




,,
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: ,, Onshore FREAKIN Fracking Is So Passé https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=qlTA3rnp gzU ,,[/p][/quote],, If you have to Frack Frack Offshore For GEOTHERMAL Energy http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/news/national /news/11248542.Frack ing_company_warns_ov er_access/ ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 3

3:11pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Ahhh, the good old British public, more concerned about who's this and that than they are about their water supply(required for survival) getting contaminated, don't you just love how close we're getting to the lack of intelligence that the Americans often show us?
Ahhh, the good old British public, more concerned about who's this and that than they are about their water supply(required for survival) getting contaminated, don't you just love how close we're getting to the lack of intelligence that the Americans often show us? Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

3:15pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Ahhh, the good old British public, more concerned about who's this and that than they are about their water supply(required for survival) getting contaminated, don't you just love how close we're getting to the lack of intelligence that the Americans often show us?
We'd have shown those Yankees a thing or two in the days of Empire, eh what Ginger-Cyclist - Carruthers?
Mine's a large Scotch and light on the soda.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: Ahhh, the good old British public, more concerned about who's this and that than they are about their water supply(required for survival) getting contaminated, don't you just love how close we're getting to the lack of intelligence that the Americans often show us?[/p][/quote]We'd have shown those Yankees a thing or two in the days of Empire, eh what Ginger-Cyclist - Carruthers? Mine's a large Scotch and light on the soda. Dai Rear
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree